Paula Blackett

AgResearch
Hamilton
New Zealand.

Terry Hume

National Institute of Water and Atmosphere (NIWA)
Hamilton
New Zealand

Jim Dahm

Eco Nomos
Thames
New Zealand

Abstract

Coastal erosion and its associated hazards to property and infrastructure
and the debates that emerge over remedial measures cause conflict that
requires negotiated solutions involving all key stakeholders. A series
of New Zealand case studies is presented and indicates that positive or
negative environmental outcomes are largely the result of how the negotiation
proceeds, who is involved, how resource management agencies behave and
the nature of the physical environment. Positive outcomes emerge when:
Cooperative relationships are established, learning and trust are developed,
risks are addressed, scientific input is managed, lobby groups are defused, contending
interests are reconciled, and records are kept of the negotiation process
and agreements reached.

Exploring
the social context of coastal erosion
management in New Zealand:
What factors drive particular environmental outcomes?

Introduction

Coastal erosion is a natural process that becomes a hazard or a problem when
it poses, or is perceived to pose, a threat to things that humans value (Ricketts,
1986). Yet, notwithstanding the risk posed by coastal erosion in many New
Zealand localities, there is a strong desire to live close the coast because
of its high aesthetic and recreational value. How to address coastal erosion
is a challenge for many coastal communities because there is debate about alternative
remedial measures, resulting in conflict that needs to be resolved. A series
of New Zealand case studies is presented to understand the coastal erosion
issue and identify the factors that determine how best to achieve positive
environmental outcomes which preserve the natural character of the coast. In
this paper, positive environmental outcomes are equated with the retention
of natural character because this is described as a matter of national importance
under New Zealand’s guiding environmental legislation.

New Zealand has a coast that is highly dynamic and varied, with shorelines
that are constantly shifting in position as a result of changing sediment
supply, wave attack, gradual changes in sea level associated with climate
change, tectonic movements and local factors including human intervention
(Goff, 2003; Healy & Kirk, 1982; Hume & Herdendorf, 1988). Many
of the earlier coastal settlements were located too close to the sea to accommodate
these changes. Moreover, in some places human interference in natural coastal
dynamics and the function of beach systems has made things worse (Pilkey & Hume
2001). When coastal erosion or storm events threaten private property, valued
community assets or a popular beach the community demands (from local government)
some action to protect their interests. The perceived solutions, presented
by affected parties, are as diverse as the range of values associated with
the coast (Becker et al., 2007; Blackett & Hume, 2006). Central to debates
about how to manage coastal erosion is the challenge of reconciling the interests
of those whose private property is at risk from coastal erosion and public
interest in community safety and sustainability. It falls to local government
to work with the community, within the constraints imposed by the Resource
Management Act (1991) (RMA) and other relevant legislation, to develop an
appropriate strategy given the situation at hand. This is never a straightforward
process.

Cooper and McKenna (2008) suggest that when an erosion event occurs the choices
are to either “intervene, accept or adapt,” or as the Inter-governmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put it, “protect, accommodate or retreat” (
Klein et al., 2001; Nicholls et al., 2007 ). Traditionally, interventions
have been dominated by a paradigm that focuses on ‘holding the line’ (i.e.,
a “protect” approach) by using shoreline armouring and engineering
structures. More recently, there has been a move to use “environmentally
soft” or “soft engineering” methods such as beach nourishment
and dune restoration (Klein et al., 2001). This reflects a shift away from
a “humans against nature” ethos towards a more integrated ecosystems
based approach (Kay & Alder, 2005) which is, in essence, about managing
humans rather than beaches. This paradigm shift has gained momentum in the
light of the predictions that climate change may aggravate coastal erosion
and flooding and the associated adverse affects of some coastal engineering
structures; and increased emphasis on sustainability and concerns about the
resilience of coastal settlements (Nicholls et al., 2007). Nevertheless, how
much this paradigm shift is reflected in practice is unclear. Adaptation and
acceptance of natural coastline fluctuations may involve managed retreat (i.e.,
relocation) of community and private assets out of the erosion prone area over
the course of time (Cooper & McKenna, 2008). Application of this approach
is constrained by the nature of the assets and the extent of the human settlements
at risk (Nicholls et al., 2007).

Each approach to managing coastal erosion has a different distribution of
benefits and costs within the community at local, regional and national scales
(Cooper & McKenna,
2008). Hard engineering options (e.g., a sea wall) may protect community or
private assets (within design parameters) but the beach in front of the structure
is likely to erode, resulting in potential loss of the beach. In such a case,
beach amenity and use for locals and visitors are lost in favour of protecting
homes and or infrastructure; and significant downstream impacts may also occur.
Managed retreat on the other hand will see beach amenity and public use protected
at the expense of property and or infrastructure. Soft engineering options
can potentially maintain both the beach and protect property, however, success
is highly dependent on the nature of the physical environment, the affordability
of the mitigation measures and successfully negotiating an outcome that reconciles
different contending interests. Of course, protection, accommodation or retreat
are not mutually exclusive options. In reality, a combination of approaches
over time may be appropriate. The selection of coastal erosion mitigation strategies
is complex because the chosen strategy must manage both the physical environment
and the trade-offs between numerous values and interests in the coastal marine
area at local, regional and national scales. Furthermore, the chosen strategy
must be affordable and equitable. What constitutes an appropriate solution
is, however, highly contested, with multiple stakeholders having very different
interests and agendas. Invariably, the final outcome is a product of how these
interests are addressed through a public decision-making process. Six New Zealand
case studies will be examined to understand the coastal erosion issue and identify
the factors shaping the outcome of efforts to mitigate the associated impacts.
The next section provides an overview of how the New Zealand coastal environment
is managed and the nature of coastal communities.

Managing the New Zealand Coastal Environment

The main legal provisions governing the coastal environment

The RMA is the key piece of piece of legislation governing coastal management
in New Zealand. The Act has a sustainable management focus and requires anyone
exercising powers under the Act to “recognise” and “provide
for” the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment
(including the coastal marine area), wetlands, lakes and rivers and their margins,
and their protection from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development” (s6(a)).
The RMA makes provision for a hierarchy of policies and plans at the national,
regional, district and city level which are used to govern coastal activities.
At the national level, the Department of Conservation (DoC) has prepared a
mandatory New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) (Department of Conservation,
1994). Recently, the NZCPS was reviewed and the intention is to update the
policy statement (Department of Conservation Policy Group, 2008) to account
for current issues in the coastal marine area. At the time of publication,
the proposed changes to the NZCPS were still under review. Although the proposed
NZCPS provides stronger direction for dealing with coastal erosion issues than
its predecessor (Department of Conservation, 1994 ; Department of Conservation
Policy Group, 2008) , it is difficult to know how the review process will influence
the final document. Regional councils, unitary authorities and district and
city councils are responsible for the day to day application of the RMA. Regional
councils are required to sustainably manage natural and physical resources
(including biodiversity, water, soil and air) while district and city councils
focus more on land use activities (e.g., subdivision). Activities in the coastal
marine zone which are not permitted in the hierarchy of plans must go through
a resource consent process. Applications for restricted coastal activities
require a public hearing presided over by a hearings committee that will include
an appointee of the Minister of Conservation. The committee will make a recommendation
to the Minister. This recommendation may be appealed to the Environment Court,
which in turn reports to the Minister. The Minister then makes the final decision
on the application. The public can make their concerns known at several stages
in the policy and planning processes; in particular, through submissions on
the draft NZCPS as part of the review process; as well as at various stages
of local authority policy and plan-making processes. In addition, any affected
party can prepare a submission on any proposed activity as it passes through
the resource consent process. Further opportunities for public involvement
in council decision-making exist through the provisions of, among other things,
the Local Government Act (2002), e.g., consultation opportunities in the preparation
of The Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP). Although the LTCCP does not
specifically deal with activities in the coastal environment on a day-to-day
basis it does allow the public to take part in creating a future vision for
the coastal environment (Wilson & Salter, 2003). City and district councils
can issue building consents for structures, coastal defences and domestic dwellings
in accordance with provisions in the Building Act (2004), which also has provisions
for making publicly available information about hazard risks associated with
specific properties through Project Information Memoranda.

New Zealand Coastal Communities

Coastal communities in New Zealand are a very diverse mix of residents, absentee
owners (beach home owners) and household income and age groups (Becker et al.
2007; Stewart, et al., 2005). Cheyne & Freeman (2006) suggest the composition
of many coastal communities has changed in the last few years as a result of
amenity based purchase of second homes (holiday homes, baches or cribs) or
a counter-urban movement by those seeking a lifestyle change. This ‘sea-change
phenomenon’ (Burnley & Murphy, 2004) has numerous social impacts
(Cheyne & Freeman,
2006) which are particularly relevant in a study on the social context of coastal
erosion. Of particular relevance, are increasing property values buoyed by
a high demand for coastal property (Cheyne & Freeman, 2006). Many small
coastal baches have been replaced with much larger and more valuable dwellings.
As a result, beachfront property represents a significant financial investment.
According to Turbott & Stewart (2006), many owners expect to use their
property in perpetuity regardless of whether or not the property is at risk
from coastal erosion. It is likely that inadequate attention is focused on
such risk when people buy beachfront property and undertake significant property
development (Bin & Kruse, 2006; Dahm, 2003; Turbott & Stewart, 2006). In the Waikato region, for example, many people think that coastal erosion
will not happen in their community within the next 20 years (Stewart et al.,
2005). Many sandy shorelines in New Zealand are in long term retreat (Pilkey & Hume,
2001) , but, even where the impact of coastal erosion is already evident, the
risk associated with coastal erosion may not be understood or taken into account.
For most people, concern about coastal erosion arises only after an event (such
as a coastal storm) threatens something they value (Cooper & McKenna, 2008).
Beachfront property owners who have been impacted or perceive themselves to
be under imminent threat are then likely to take concerted action to protect
their property and the associated financial investment; notwithstanding potential
impacts the protective measures might impose on other stakeholders, for example,
those who wish to maintain beach amenity and the natural character of the coast,
or property owners downstream that might experience adverse impacts due to
protective measures. Conflict inevitably arises and may become intractable
because of the significant interests at stake. Understanding the social context
of such conflicts sheds light on key factors affecting the choice of erosion
mitigation strategy, and how the public decision-making process determines
the outcomes of such choices.

Methods

Issues surrounding community involvement in coastal erosion management are
explored at six locations in New Zealand to identify the factors that contribute
to retaining or losing “natural character” of the coastal environment,
as defined in the RMA in section 6. According to Dahm (2000) , natural character
includes natural features (i.e., landforms, indigenous and introduced flora
and fauna) and natural processes (both physical and biological). All coastal
environments retain some degree of natural character although increased human
modification reduces “naturalness”. Situations that resulted in
retention of natural character are described as positive environmental outcomes
whereas loss of natural character is considered to be a negative environmental
outcome. ‘Soft’ mitigation options, like dune re-vegetation or
managed retreat, are thus deemed positive environmental outcomes because they
do not impact on natural character, are consistent with many district plans
and do not reduce the public amenity value of the coast. Negative environmental
outcomes result from mitigation measures that adversely affect natural character
e.g., because of shoreline armouring (or some other hard engineering option).
Such ‘hard’ engineering approaches may succeed in stopping the
shoreline from retreating further (and thus protect beachfront). But they typically
lead to a loss of high tide beach and natural character of the area, and may
also cause significant downstream impacts. In addition to considerations about
natural character, the choice of mitigation strategy obviously has important
social, cultural, aesthetic and economic impacts. The latter are not the focus
of this study.

Six case studies (Urenui, Mokau, Marokopa, Muriwai, Mangawhai and Bay of
Plenty) were selected based on three criteria. Firstly, the community had experienced
a beach erosion event which threatened local values or property within recent
memory. Secondly, there was a body of scientific knowledge about the behaviour
of the beach system over time. Finally, a history of community action and past
decisions was available though key informants and secondary data sources such
as council records, technical reports and newspapers. Unstructured face to
face interviews (Kitchin, 2000) were selected as the most appropriate way to
collect information about the social context of the erosion events and the
choice of mitigation measures. This research is exploratory but these case
studies help to shed light on key factors shaping environmental outcomes based
on participants’ experiences
in making decisions to manage coastal erosion. Interviewees were selected to
represent the array of stakeholders and interests involved in, or familiar
with, negotiating the outcome at each site, and included participants from
local government (four), technical specialists (three) and local communities
(nine). Technical specialists and participants from local government were familiar
with more than one of the case studies. Each participant was interviewed at
their home or place of work. Interviews took between one and a half and four
hours, and each interview was recorded and transcribed. This paper provides
a succinct overview of each case study and then presents a synthesis of the
key factors influencing the final environmental outcome. Although every effort
has been made to avoid identifying interviewees, the circumstances and nature
of the information provided may result in their identity being apparent to
some. All those interviewed found this acceptable.

Results

The details of each case study (see Figure 1) are briefly summarised in the
following sections from a physical and social perspective, informed by a literature
review and participant interviews.

Figure 1. Locations of the six case studies on the
west and east coast of the North Island of New Zealand.

Urenui

Urenui Beach is a small (0.5 km long) steep, reflective, black sand beach
at the mouth of the Urenui River on the west coast of the North Island (Figure
1). It receives the full force of ocean swell generated to the south of New
Zealand as well as shorter period waves generated in the Tasman Sea. While
there are large movements of sand on and off the beach in response to changes
in the wave climate, the total volume of sand in the system is small and at
the southwestern end of the beach a rock platform is exposed on occasions when
the sand is stripped by waves. There is strong longshore transport of sand
from west to east along the shore and the shoreline is very mobile at the river
mouth. A strip of council owned public land some 300 to 400 metres wide behind
the beach contains baches (constructed in the 1940’s and 1950’s
on long term lease land) at the western end and a very popular public golf
course at the eastern end. Public access to Urenui beach was restricted by
the baches and golf course. Erosion over the last 30 years has threatened the
baches and the only Par 5 hole on the golf course. This threat, coupled with
30 years of council inaction and a growing community concern about coastal
erosion, resulted in the formation of a lobby group to push for shoreline armouring.
Others were opposed to such protective works. Under increased pressure, the
District Council employed a consultant to facilitate a process of community
negotiation and recommend a potential solution. In the consultants view, the
most appropriate solution was a ‘soft’ mitigation option involving
managed retreat of the baches and redesign of the golf course including relocation
of the Par 5 hole. This solution was seen to balance competing views and maintain
the natural character of the beach. However, the majority of stakeholders involved
in the community consultation process (mainly golf club members and bach owners)
had interests in ‘holding the line’ and lobbied for a rock wall – overwhelming
the opinion of the underrepresented wider community. This lobby group withdrew
from the negotiation process and used political pressure (in a local body election
year) to begin a consent application (to the Regional Council) for a publicly-funded
seawall. In spite of an unfavourable Assessment of Environmental Effects, the
Regional Council granted a temporary (10 year) consent for the construction
of an $800,000 rock seawall along the front of the golf course. As a result,
the wider community lost a high tide beach, the natural character was adversely
affected and edge effects of the wall are impacting the adjacent un-armoured
section of the beach. A summary of the influences driving what is perceived
to be a negative environmental outcome at Urenui is illustrated in Figure 2.

Muriwai

Muriwai Beach forms the southern end of a long dissipative, black sand beach
on the west coast (Figure 1). It receives the full force of long period ocean
swell generated to the south of New Zealand as well as shorter period waves
generated in the Tasman Sea. There are large movements of sand on and off the
beach in response to changes in the wave climate and the level of the beach
rises and falls about one to three metres as a consequence. The dunes are
eroded and scarped along the shore. There is strong longshore transport of
sand from south to north along the shore.

Since the 1960’s, Muriwai beach has been eroding with the shoreline
retreating around one metre per year. Erosion has threatened mainly Regional
Council public park infrastructure, including a car park, the surf club, the
surf club tower, a golf course and roading. Past attempts to control the erosion
include a seawall constructed by the Army around 20 years ago to protect one
of the car parks and, more recently, constructed defences of gabion baskets
and tipped rock to stop erosion where the road and boat ramp enter the beach.
The Regional Council engaged a consultant to facilitate a solution with local
stakeholders. This third party involvement was important to counteract some
distrust amongst locals of the council and its long term plans for the beach
front. The consultant established a process where all stakeholders were represented
(local, councils, wider community groups, surfers etc.). Stakeholders were
not committed to any preconceived outcome. What is interesting about this situation
is that the most vocal stakeholders and the wider community both wanted to
retain the natural character of the beach – quite a different situation
to Urenui. The end result was a managed retreat solution through staged implementation
with assets to be relocated away from the seashore when certain trigger points
are reached. This solution provides time to conduct further investigations,
get the required resource consents and for the community and beach users to
adapt to change. Moreover, it allows for the unpredictable nature of coastal
erosion. This solution has now been written up as a formal strategy and hazard
lines have been formalised. The surf club has already been moved inland and
fortunately council reserve land is available to accommodate all future infrastructure
moves. Community relations with the Regional Council improved as a result of
this process and now the council continues to manage the reserve in a more
inclusive manner giving the local community more say over what happens at their
beach. A summary of the influences driving the positive environmental outcome
achieved at Muriwai is illustrated in Figure 2.

Mokau

Mokau beach fronts an 800 metre long sand barrier at the mouth of a tidal
river (Figure 1). The dunes are high (10 m) and the barrier well vegetated
except at the south tip where the sea washes over. The coast is very energetic
and the beach subject to cycles of erosion and accretion driven by southern
ocean swells and strong prevailing winds from the south west. Sand bars at
the river mouth are highly mobile and shift about in response to changes in
wave climate and river floods. As the bars shift the protective screening from
wave energy that they provide to the beach comes and goes, and waves and currents
erode sand from the beach and dunes. As a consequence the level of the sand
on the beach rises and falls one to two metres and the dunes get undercut by
waves.

Erosion at Mokau has been recorded in roughly decadal cycles, separated by
periods of beach accretion. Erosion became an issue in 1956 when the Crown
subdivided the spit, against the recommendations of the local authority. In
the 1960’s, an erosion event resulted in the loss of several sections
and compensation was provided by the Government. Since that time, many of the
earlier sections have been subdivided and now contain modest holiday homes
close to the edge of the dune. An event in 1995/96 threatened several beachfront
properties, resulting in illegal sandbagging by residents to protect their
properties. At this stage the Regional and District Councils began working
with the community to find a solution. Coastal hazard mapping identified three
risk zones (high, medium and low) and placed 12 houses in the high risk zone.
Initial pressure from beachfront land owners was to build a sea wall to protect
their investment, however, the wider community and both councils opposed this
option because of the costs (to be covered through additional local rates)
and loss of natural character of the beach. Some beachfront land owners became
reconciled to ‘doing nothing’ once the nature of the hazard was
explained and they realised they may get many more years use from their properties
despite the threat of erosion.

Between the mid 1990’s and 2003 there were no significant erosion episodes
and beach levels tended to build up. During this same time, the value of coastal
properties nationwide increased considerably and many of the Mokau beachfront
properties were sold for typically at least $100,000 more than previous sales.
As a consequence, when the next erosion phase occurred in 2003/04, council
staff found themselves facing the same scenario as in 1995/96 and started renegotiating
options with the community and a significant number of new beachfront landowners
who had brought property at a premium - despite the hazard warning (derived
from the hazard lines which were drawn up for the community) specified on Land
Information Memoranda (a council report detailing all information relevant
to the property) of threatened properties. Despite general community awareness
about the risk and previous decisions about how best to manage coastal erosion,
the result of the renegotiation was much the same, namely to “do nothing.” But
with increasing property values and no formal long term plan to resolve the
issue, it is likely that future coastal erosion will compel action. About six
properties are currently threatened by erosion and there are ongoing disputes
about unconsented (thus illegal) protection works. Figure 2 illustrates the
relative strengths of the influences leading to the ‘do nothing’ option
at Mokau.

Marokopa

At Marokopa a one kilometre long sand barrier lies at the mouth of a tidal
river and protects the inner estuary from swells from the Southern Ocean, Tasman
Sea waves and prevailing winds from the south west (Figure 1). In the north
the spit is only 200 metres wide and is comprised of very low dunes which have
been washed over by large seas in the past. Dunes had been gradually eroding
mainly due to disturbance of the stabilising dune vegetation by grazing cattle
and off road vehicle traffic. Sand blown off the dunes and into the estuary
caused it to shallow reducing navigability. As the dunes lowered, the risk
of barrier over-washing in storms increased and the threat loomed of a breach
of the barrier and the creation of a second entrance and subsequent erosion
of the exposed east bank shores opposite the entrance, as happened at Mangawhai
in 1978 (described later).

Marokopa property owners on the east bank of the
river had already erected timber walls to protect their assets against erosion
(from river and wind waves) and a breach became a serious concern. This concern,
underscored by the fact that the sand dunes of the barrier are a burial site
of Maori ancestors, caused a local person to take action to stabilise the barrier.
Initially this involved trying to warn people to keep off the barrier but this
created tension within the community as the land was perceived to be publicly
owned when in fact it was Maori land, managed by the Government through an
old agreement with the local Hapu (tribe). When warning people off the spit
proved to be too difficult and fraught with conflict, the individual concerned
attempted to open lines of communication with central and local government
to begin remedying the erosion problem. At first it was a struggle for the
local person to get traction because of a lack of understanding of technical
terminology and Regional Council processes and policies. After recognising
the lack of knowledge and becoming educated in resource management matters
through study at Te Wananga O Aotearoa (a Maori University) a more productive
relationship was established with the Regional Council. The final arrangement
was that plants and advice for re-vegetation were supplied by the Regional
Council, labour was initially provided by the local person and other interested
neighbours and later by Periodic Detention workers. Over time the wider community
became more accepting and supportive of the dune re-vegetation as the results
became evident. However the relationship between the local person and the wider
community is periodically tense because of verbal warnings issued to those
who stray into the planted area. The success of the dune planting project has
fuelled plans to set up a local coastal plant nursery to support ongoing plantings.
Important influences on the process of achieving a positive environmental outcome
at Marokopa are summarised in Figure 2.

Bay of Plenty Coast Care groups

The Coast Care programme in the Bay of Plenty (Figure 1) has been operating
since 1993/94. It began as an idea by several enthusiastic local people who
were inspired by the changes brought about by the RMA and the partnership arrangements
observed in New South Wales (Australia) involving communities, councils and
state governments in dune restoration to combat coastal erosion. The Bay of
Plenty Coast Care Programme (BOPCCP) operates under an advisory group with
representatives from Environment Bay of Plenty, Western Bay of Plenty District
Council, Tauranga City Council, Whakatane District Council, Opotiki District
Council and the Department of Conservation, with a key role played by the group
co-ordinator from the Regional Council. This group meets every six weeks at
different sites around the Bay of Plenty and is the guiding force behind the
BOPCCP. The vision of the group is “working with communities to protect
and enhance the natural coastal environment”. There are around 28
groups working along the Bay of Plenty coastline.

Local Coast Care groups establish for a variety of reasons but are typically
started because of a threat to private property, public infrastructure (e.g.,
surf club, reserves or beach access) or a valued resource (e.g., beach access
or loss of native coastal plant species such as Pingao that stabilise the sand
dunes and provide material for Maori weaving). In some cases, the Regional
Council recommends the establishment of a local group to address local concerns.
Local groups manage themselves in a way which allows them to best pursue their
goals. But in their formative stages, the BOPCCP advisory group tends to work
closely with local groups, with local authorities providing supplies such as
plants, material and expertise but not financial assistance. The key players
in this case study are the local Coast Care groups and Local Authorities (see
Figure 2). A number of local groups have made significant progress in restoring
coastal dunes and contributed to positive environmental outcomes in the region
(Environment Bay of Plenty, 2009). Effective local groups have typically developed
good relationships with local authorities, science providers and the BOPCCP
advisory group. The main factor in the success of the groups in resolving conflicts
and achieving their goals is the ability, energy and enthusiasm of the local
Coast Care Coordinator. Figure 2 shows the influences involved with establishment
of Beach Care groups in the Bay of Plenty.

Mangawhai

At Mangawhai a sandspit or barrier separates the estuary lagoon from the
open sea (Figure 1). During a storm in July 1978 spring tides and large waves
caused the Mangawhai spit to be overtopped and breached at its narrowest point
and a second (southern) entrance to the harbour was formed. As a consequence
tidal flow was split between the new and the original entrance, and the original
(northern) entrance began to silt up and shallow. The new entrance deepened
and took over as the main entrance but was unstable and dangerous to navigate.
This change resulted in the loss of a safe navigable entrance to the only harbour
between Whangarei and Leigh. There was also siltation of the mooring area in
the estuary, deposition of sand made the boat ramp usable only about high tide
and pipi (shellfish) beds in the harbour were buried. Over time the original
entrance barred off and the lagoon became eutrophic and smelly in summer. Waves
coming through the new entrance caused erosion of the western shore of the
estuary (Flood, et al., 1993). These events adversely affected harbour aesthetics,
use and natural character.

A community group, run by a committee of very well connected locals, formed
to close the new entrance to the estuary and solve the problems. About 90%
of the local and wider community supported the group’s restoration plans. However,
the local authorities, whilst sympathetic to the cause, did not act because of
the technical nature of the problem and their lack of relevant expertise. Furthermore,
the Department of Conservation opposed inlet closure and dredging on philosophical
grounds, as they argue nature should take its course. By the summer of 1991,
the community group, frustrated by a lack of action, secretly organised an attempt
to open the entrance using about 40 assorted earth moving machines and local
labour. The ‘Big Dig” began at dawn on the 11 th February 1991
and lasted for 3 days. However the effort failed because of the lack of suitable
equipment and limited knowledge of tidal inlet processes. Between 1991 and
1994 there were several other attempts to open the entrance using a small dredge
(Spirit of Mangawhai) built locally for the job but these efforts were also
unsuccessful. Eventually, the community group engaged a coastal engineer who
lived in a neighbouring community to provide technical advice. The engineer
and the committee worked with the community and helped them revise the plan
and decide on more appropriate equipment (including the purchase of a more
powerful dredge, the Thomas MacKinnon) and presented the case to authorities
for a resource consent. The consent was granted in January 1995. Eventually
the original entrance was reopened and the 1978 breach closed. The appointment
of the technical expert was a turning point for the group because they gained
a better perspective of what was required to return the harbour to its previous
condition and protect it against similar future events. The community group
has since gone on to complete follow up work to stabilise the spit against
future threats and also address wider issues including developing a harbour
management plan and a campaign against sand extraction at the harbour entrance.
The original committee remains involved even as objectives shift. The group
was very fortunate to have an Endowment Fund at their disposal and they obtained
considerable other funding from the local community and numerous grants. A
positive environmental outcome was the result of several factors, including
sharing a common goal; key members of the group had good communication skills
and used extensive personal networks to bring the community together and hold
them together; the motivation was community interest not personal gain; there
was a widely held community belief that they could develop an effective solution;
the community was prepared to get involved and help; and a technical expert
provided ongoing support, guidance and focus to community efforts. Important
influences on the process of achieving a positive environmental outcome at
Mangawhai are summarised in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Summary of the influences driving what is perceived to
be negative and positive environmental outcomes at the six case study locations.
[Note: The thickness of the horizontal line is an approximation of the relative
strength of influence of the different groups involved in the process. The
length of the vertical bar on the lefthand column of the diagram shows the
relative sum of the influences driving the situation towards a positive or
negative environmental outcome. Time runs from left to right in the diagram
to show the points at which different influences come into play.]

Discussion

Figure 3 illustrates the key role-players involved in negotiating environmental
outcomes in the above case studies (depicted in the large oval), including
community members, regulators and technical experts.

The media and political climate (or national level politics) tend have a
more diffuse impact on the public decision making process rather than being
active participants; unless they are being influenced by a local lobby group.
However, once a consent application is in progress for a Restricted Coastal
Activity the Central Government enters the debate (as a regulator) because
of the role of the Minister of Conservation as the final decision maker. The
community consists of stakeholders (with specific interests) and the wider
community. After an erosion event, stakeholder groups tended to form, consisting
of members of the community whose interests are imperilled by erosion (including
permanent residents in beachfront properties, holiday home owners, agencies
responsible for public infrastructure and operators of businesses dependent
on a beachfront location). Such groups typically seek to protect their vested
interests in their seafront location against the actual or perceived threat
of erosion or a perceived failure of Local Authorities to address their concerns.
Stakeholder groups in the above case studies were numerous and held diverse
and potentially conflicting perspectives. There was almost always a group of
beachfront property owners who wished to ‘hold the line’ with a
hard engineering structure, usually a rock revetment. Stakeholder groups tended
to strongly focus on protecting their interests, and either lobby local or
central government (e.g., Urenui) or take direct action themselves (e.g., Mangawhai
and Marokopa). The interests present within the wider community either at local,
regional, or national level may or may not be represented by one of the stakeholder
groups. In general, the wider community often favours a solution which protects
public access or amenity values and may conflict with stakeholder group interests
that are more narrowly focused on threats to particular properties or investments.
However, stakeholder groups brought together by local government with a specific
purpose (i.e., consultation) or facilitated during the early stages of decision
making by a representative of a local authority (e.g., Muriwai, Mokau and many
Coast Care groups) tend to be more inclusive and representative of wider community
interests.

The regulators consist of those agencies with a statutory management responsibility
(under the RMA and other relevant legislation) within the coastal environment,
typically regional and district councils and the Department of Conservation.
Each regulator, although subject to and responsible for ensuring the implementation
of the laws of the land, may be responsible for particular statutes, and have
different mandates, viewpoints, approaches and often prefer different solutions.
This is quite typical of resource management in New Zealand because of the
diversity of legal and policy imperatives and devolution to regional and district
authorities to develop locally appropriate solutions (Gregory, 2008). Prevailing
legislation and practice compels public consultation about resource management
issues and hence resolution of coastal erosion problems will be subject to
some consultative process, and potentially to a negotiated outcome. But as
some the case studies illustrate, there is considerable variability in the
extent to which prevailing consultative processes are inclusive and result
in meaningful resolution of contending interests.

Technical experts include a mix of scientists, practitioners and engineers.
This group may hold quite different professional perspectives about how to
manage an erosion event. These views are probably linked to professional training, ‘current
practice’ and personal preference about whether or not hard or soft engineering
options are appropriate and how individual practitioners manage scientific
uncertainty.

The relationships and interactions between, and within, the community, regulators
and technical experts, and the extent to which contending interests can be satisfactorily
resolved, shapes to a large extent the outcomes of efforts to address coastal
erosion hazards. Although the context of each case study is different, a number
of common themes emerge which determined the environmental outcome (see Figure
4).

Overall the key drivers of whether or not positive or negative environmental
outcomes were achieved are a function of relationship building; power balance
and the representativeness of decisions; alignment between regulators; responding
to events in a timely manner; and the role of good science.

Relationship building

The relationships between those involved in coastal hazard management are
particularly important in shaping outcomes. Situations where co-operative relationships
have developed between communities, local authorities and technical experts
seem more likely to encourage positive environmental outcomes. Few relationships
begin as being co-operative. The initial response from the community to a threat
to private property, community assets or a popular beach is to ask “When
is the council going to fix this?” In several of the case studies, local
communities (e.g., Mangawhai) or individuals (e.g., Mokau, Marokopa) act on
their own to solve erosion issues in the absence of advice from local authorities
or technical experts. Concern about independent action is threefold: Firstly,
it may favour one set of interests and values at the cost of others (e.g.,
Mokau). Secondly, it may be an ineffective or inappropriate action for that
particular physical coastal environment (e.g., Mokau, Mangawhai). Thirdly,
independent action is generally not permitted under the RMA (e.g., Mokau, Mangawhai).
Independent action seems more likely if those concerned have difficult relationships
with local authorities due to current or past issues (e.g., Mangawhai, Mokau).
It is important to note that at Mangawhai and Marokopa the relationships have
improved over time, but arguably due to efforts by the local authorities and
technical specialists to engage with the community and work through the issues.
In the Muriwai situation, and for the various Bay of Plenty Coast Care groups,
local authorities and technical specialists were involved with the community
from the very outset. By engaging with the community and working with them
to establish a course of action meant that independent action and / or poor
representation of the wider community interests was reduced and it was more
likely that positive environmental outcomes would be achieved. This experience
is consistent with the communicative planning literature which indicates that
more appropriate solutions are generated through engagement with communities
(see e.g., Healey, 1992; 1998). This task of building relationships usually
falls to local authorities who need to work hard to build relationships with
affected communities through effective (jargon free) communication, supporting
community learning, transparency of process and honesty about the limits imposed
by policy and plans, and managing expectations about the implications and feasibility
of alternative solutions (Note: to give effect to these actions may require
significant capacity building in some local authorities). It is important to
maintain these relationships as negotiated solutions are implemented because
groups like those at Mangawhai and Marokopa having succeeded in one area, move
on to address other local issues. If the group does move on to other issues,
a good working relationship with local authorities will help avoid revisiting
earlier problems.

Addressing issues of power and ensuring representative decisions

Forester (1989) suggests that to ignore the power dimension of social interaction
undermines and even precludes planning outcomes that serve public interests. As coastal property represents a significant financial investment, beachfront
property owners typically push for coastline armouring, potentially at the
expense of other interests associated with the coastal environment. In many
cases, it falls to local authorities to include wider community interests into
the process, or represent these interests themselves. A failure to do this
will favour private over public interests.

In the above case studies, negative environmental outcomes appeared to be
more common when communities affected by coastal erosion had lobby groups (community
initiated groups which promote narrowly defined interests rather than wider
community interests through interactions with local authorities and the media),
and where there was limited wider community representation. In many cases,
the loudest voice in a debate about what to do about coastal erosion was a
lobby group of beachfront property owners or land users who had a strong interest
in ‘holding the line.’ Often such groups claimed to legitimately
represent the wider community (e.g., Urenui). Their influence can be considerable,
particularly if they are articulate, well resourced and politically well connected.
Powerful lobby groups were often skilled with their use of language to construct
the problem. For example, the case for an extension to the rock wall at Urenui
appeared in the media phrased as ‘urgent’, ‘necessary’ and
a ‘failure’ if the council were to delay any further (West, 2005)
- all strong emotive terms applied to emphasise their desired outcome and suggest
irresponsibility of the council if other solutions were considered. The wall
has subsequently been extended. In some cases, groups or individuals may be
willing to act without consultation (e.g., Mangawhai, Mokau and Marokopa) and
potentially at the expense of other parties. Cooper & McKenna (2008) point
out that local communities may sympathise with those at risk of losing their
house (or valued asset) to coastal erosion. However, beachfront property owners
are not the only ones who stand to lose something. If participants involved
in the negotiation of a solution to coastal erosion represent only one interest
or a limited range of interests then, the final outcome will not be representative
of community interests (Stephan, 2005). In addition, because of the intensity
and emotive nature of disputes about how to manage coastal erosion at the local
level, wider regional and national interests may be ignored. This is especially
relevant in New Zealand because significant income is derived from tourism
and product differentiation dependent on a “clean green” environmental
image and unspoilt landscape (Ministry for the Environment, 2001). Moreover,
there is public demand and a legal imperative to maintain the natural character
of the New Zealand coast.

Alignment between the regulators – a co-ordinated plan

Gregory (2008) points out that local authorities want increased direction
from central government about dealing with coastal management issues and, at
the same time, to be left to make local decisions themselves. The revised NZCPS
(see Department of Conservation Policy Group, 2008) ought to help resolve these
tensions, although it is not clear to what extent it will achieve this goal.
Although the NZCPS informs a hierarchy of plans (Regional Coastal Plans and
District plans) and policy statements (Regional Coastal Policy Statement),
which must not be inconsistent with each other, differences arise with interpretation
and implementation in practice. This may be attributable to the differences
in weighting given to economic, social and environmental and cultural factors
in the resource consent process. Decision makers may privilege any one of these
factors depending on their own personal perspective (Dobson, 2003) and interpretation
of the situation at hand. In coastal decisions it is not uncommon for economic
interests and private property rights to ranked above environmental or wider
social concerns (Peart, 2008). This is especially true when strong economic
interests or powerful lobby groups representing specific interests are present.
As the RMA is an effects based piece of legislation each consent application
is considered independently which creates difficulties in assessing the cumulative
impacts of coastal sub-division or coastline protection works. Moreover, as
each outcome can be negotiated (with guidance from council plan and policy
and case law) there is the potential for private interests to continually
supersede the interests of the wider community and New Zealanders as a whole.
What is absent at the national or regional level is more specific direction
in policy statements and plans as to which beaches will be developed and which
will not. This guidance will provide a more coordinated approach to coastal
development, minimise ad-hoc responses to individual consent applications for
structures on the coast and provide what New Zealanders profess to want and
value (Becker et al., 2007; Dahm, 2003).

Respond to events in a timely manner

Coastal communities have a low perception of risk to coastal erosion events
unless local property or beaches are under threat. After an erosive storm event,
the community may have a very different, more imminent perspective on the threat
of coastal erosion to that held by a local authority or technical expert. Communities
typically are unfamiliar with the technical aspects of erosion events. Conveyance
of risk is challenging because of the scientific uncertainty involved and the
need for sufficient technical information to demonstrate whether or not a particular
erosion event is part of a short-term trend (months and years) of cyclic shoreline
advance and retreat which may ‘cure itself’ without the need for
intervention. In such cases the risk is less than a particular event may indicate
and properties may be useable for several more decades. A failure to respond
appropriately may be considered abandonment of the community by the local authority
and perhaps result in action by individuals to protect their investment (i.e.,
Mangawhai, Mokau). In most cases, the action is illegal (i.e., an un-consented
activity in the coastal marine area) and ineffective from a scientific perspective.
At Urenui, council inaction led to resentment festering within the community
and when the council did act to negotiate a solution there was already a considerable
amount of frustration and stakeholders had adopted entrenched positions. Council
requirements to follow a particular process (as outlined by their policies
and plans) and balance the demands of all constituents in the district or region
take time and may be poorly recognised or mis-interpreted as delaying tactics
or disinterest. These institutional processes may take time, but acting early
to engage with an affected community and overcome community misconceptions
about risks and council processes and priorities are key aspects in achieving
positive environmental outcomes which retain natural character.

The role of good science

‘Good science’ can play an important role in managing coastal
erosion because it can explain the physical context, provide estimates of risk
and outline management options. However, it should not dominate the decision-making
process. Rather scientific understanding needs to be integrated with local
and traditional knowledge to help inform participants about the situation and
trade-offs and likely outcomes of different solutions. The key is to include
scientific and technical information in an appropriate manner and at the right
time in the debate, a task which usually falls to specialists within local
authorities.

Retention of technical knowledge in terms of staff skills and records of
past events, processes and decisions is essential to informing the debate and
good management decisions. A loss of institutional knowledge of coastal hazard
issues at Mokau occurred within local authorities and affected communities,
primarily because erosion events were decades apart. Staff turnover and scattered
storage of relevant documentation was not conducive to maintaining community
relationships and knowledge about historical erosion events and, importantly,
the lessons learnt from previously negotiated solutions. In the community,
newcomers were not aware of the long term erosion trends nor details of past
community decisions. This presents two key problems: First, new staff require
time to ‘get up to speed’ on the issues and history and develop
trust with the community, which may hinder or slow the resolution process.
Second, a new cycle of property ownership in hazard prone areas can lead to
a (potentially expensive) recycling of issues and consultation. This may be
perfectly reasonable should the community as a whole wish to renegotiate. But
it could be more problematic if it is simply a few new stakeholders who are
taking the chance to challenge an earlier sound decision.

In contrast a more structured approach was adopted at Muriwai. Here technical
information on coastal processes was assembled by council and reconciled with
the community’s knowledge about local processes and various options to
address the issues through public meetings and wider consultation. Decisions
were then formalised in a management plan incorporating coastal hazard setbacks
which allowed newcomers to see what was agreed upon and how it will be implemented.
With a more structured approach it is important that bureaucratic processes
do not stifle the exchange of dialogue between the various parties and inhibit
relationships and the consultative process.

Well designed hazard zones and development setbacks provide an important
opportunity for science to inform coastal management. While there is still
uncertainty because of the lack of data on coastal processes and debate amongst
experts as to the best methods for designing coastal setbacks and hazard zones
and how to apply them, they provide valuable quantitative information to inform
deliberations. Hazard zones incorporate technical information into maps illustrating
what parts of the community are at risk from particular events and provide
guidance as to where development is best located. The maps form the focus for
discussions between the community and the local authority about future management
options so that trade-offs and reconciliation of competing interests can begin.
All new subdivisions are required to have setbacks which accommodate current
and future risks by providing a buffer space for the naturally occurring movements
of the shoreline in response to variability and change in coastal processes,
and space for preservation of natural character, biodiversity and public access
to our coastal margins. Where setbacks and hazard zones are not in place coastal
erosion issues are dealt with in a more reactionary ad-hoc manner. Ad-hoc responses
are more likely to lead to negative environmental outcomes as lobby groups
can have more impact, and issues have a greater chance of being assessed without
considering cumulative long term impacts or interests of the wider community.

The lack of good science input is an issue faced by councils with a small
rating base. Due to the small size of their operations, meagre in-house technical
resources, and limited access to information, council resource officers are
forced to be “Jack
of all trades” with many issues to cover on limited funds and time. How
to deal with coastal erosion presents councils with a significant challenge
under these circumstances.

Summary and Conclusions

Disputes over how to address coastal erosion are frequently emotional and
contentious because of the values and interests associated with the coastal
environment and the distribution of costs and benefits generated by different
management strategies. This paper has argued that environmental outcomes following
a coastal erosion event which threatens private property, community assets
or a popular beach is influenced by who is involved in negotiating solutions
and how contending interests are reconciled, how resource management agencies
behave and the nature of the physical coastal environment. Positive environmental
outcomes, which result in retaining the natural character of the coast, are
more likely when co-operative relationships are developed between local authorities,
technical experts and communities through facilitated discussion, learning,
information exchange and resolution of conflicting values and interests. Independent
action by individuals or community groups appears to be more common in the
absence of such relationships or when the local authorities’ response
is not considered timely. One of the most important considerations is to ensure
all interests are represented in the decision-making process and that power
differences are addressed to avoid capture of the process by a group with narrow
interests that conflict with community interests. This may mean incorporating
interests beyond the immediately impacted community.

From a local authority perspective, a clear understanding of the scientific
and historical information relevant to a given coastal erosion event provides
a good basis for beginning negotiations with stakeholders over potential options.
Care needs to be taken to ensure the science is introduced to the community
at the right time in an appropriate manner to ensure open discussion about
the impacts of alternative options.

One of the dangers in addressing coastal erosion events is a focus on short term
stakeholder interests at the local community level rather than longer term regional
and national interests. A response to individual community concerns, if not managed
carefully, could lead to a highly modified coastal environment. It is imperative
for the revised NZCPS to provide national guidance on how to manage coastal erosion.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the New Zealand Foundation for Research Science and
Technology under subcontract to GNS Science in the programme Geological Hazards
and Society (Contract C05X0402), Objective 1, Land use planning for reduction
and recovery. We are very grateful to the individuals and representatives
of community groups and Regional Council officers who provided much useful
material and interesting debate on their issues. We thank Julia Becker, Wendy
Saunders and Janine Kerr of GNS Science for useful discussions. Darcel
Rickard of NIWA assisted with transcribing interviews.

Cheyne, C., & Freeman, C. (2006). A rising tide lifts all boats? A preliminary
investigation into the impact of rising New Zealand coastal property prices
on small communities. New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences.
1, 105-124.